Skip to main content

Full text of "Reconciliation"

See other formats




Rev. Ebenezer Myers 

Lenoir, North Carolina 

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A ttt AAil 


By Rev. Ebenezer Myers 

Lenoir, North Carolina 

Texts e€ And you, that were sometime alien- 
ated and enemies in your mind by wicked 
works, yet now hath he reconciled, in the body 
of his flesh through death, to present you holy 
and unblameable and unreprovable in His 
sight."— Col 1:21,22. 

Also let the reader read 2 Cor. 5: 18, 19, and 
Methodist preachers, especially, I direct to 
Articles of Religion in the Discipline. Numbers 
2 and 7 show the need of reconciliation, and 
Number 2 shows that this was the purpose of 
Christ's coming into the world, and the recon- 
ciliation of God to man and man to God. Re- 
conciliation implies enmity: so there was enmity 
between God and man. Man by obeying the 
devil, became the enemy of God, alienating 
himself from God. 

I am aware that some shallow-thinking 
teachers and preachers today are denying the 
doctrine of reconciliation and especially that 
of God to man. They have a small idea of our 
God, they think he is like some old Granny, all 
love and pity, they forget or have not learned 
that righteousness, justice and judgment, are 
just as much attributes of God as his love and 
mercy. (Psa. 89: 14.) His love and mercy 
cannot go beyond his justice and judgment. 

The sin of the first parents not only disre- 
garded his love and mercy, but offended his 
justice and judgment. God had said in the day 
thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. He 
meant that: and man did die spiritually that 
moment, separated himself from God. God*s 
law being broken and his justice offended, he 
could not go after man, and man could not 
help himself, and but for the fact that Jesus 
volunteered as a go-between, an atonement, a 

propitiation, and voluntarily went to death, 
the death that was due man, and made an 
atonement and expiation, reconciling the Father 
to man, and thus provided for man's reconcili- 
ation to God, I say, man could never have been 
saved. Devils were angels and they fell, but no 
atonement was made for them, and they re- 
main devils. Of course, their case was different; 
their sin was open rebellion against God and 
the laws of heaven, and throughout eternity 
they will remain devils. Just what man would 
have been without redemption no one can 

Jesus himself, his atoning death, not his 
example and his teaching; but His death on 
the cross, is God's reconciliation to man. It 
stands out so clearly and plainly that man can- 
not doubt it, and so he has no excuse for stay- 
ing away from God, and not only so but God 
stands and calls to man in pity and tender love 
to come home to him. God says, "COME" 642 
times, and "COME NOW" over 200 times in 
His word. He is represented in Rev. 3: 20 as 
standing at the door of man's heart knocking 
and pleading for admission to his heart. Paul 
in our text says, that the word or message of 
reconciliation had been committed to us, to him 
and others. So, God sends out his ministers, 
ambassadors to invite men, to beseech men to 
be reconciled to Him. (2 Cor. 5:20). Paul 
says "we are ambassadors for Christ," an am- 
bassador is one appointed by a King or a gov- 
ernment to represent that government to an- 
other. He is clothed with all the authority and 
power of his government and whatever busi- 
ness he transacts has all the backing of his 
King or government. He is not his own, not on 
his own expenses or powers. 

So, St. Paul was representing Jesus Christ in 
this world, and could call himself the prisoner 
of Jesus Christ, so every truly called minister 
of Jesus is an ambassador for Christ, not his 
own or on his own authority or expense, and 

therefore is amenable to only Jesus Christ, not 
to men or to any authority. 

See these gracious terms appearing in God's 
message to men in the New Testament: Atone- 
ment, expiation, propitiation, reconciliation, and 
redemption. What do they mean? Why are they 
in the Bible? How gracious the meaning to us? 
But what do they mean to men who deny the 
teaching of the reconciliation? 

But who is he, and what manner of being is 
this who made this reconciliation? (2 Cor. 5: 
19). "God was in Christ reconciling the world 
unto himself." The modernist's interpretation 
of this person puts him in the class with Moses, 
the prophets and the apostles, who were filled 
with God, something like Socinianism, but that 
is not the meaning at all. "The man Jesus was 
the temple and shrine of the eternal divinity," 
says Dr. Adam Clarke in his commentary. Col. 
2: 9 says, "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness 
of the Godhead bodily." So it is the Godhead 
manifest in human form that makes this re- 
conciliation between God and man, and no 
being less than this could make the reconcilia- 
tion; no one else could do it; no angel could 
do it; no inanimate thing could do it; all the 
gold in the world could not atone for a single 
sin; and no human being could do it. There 
must be a perfect human body, mind and soul, 
a complete person for the offering, but there 
must also be deity for the authority and value 
for the offering, and that is what took place. 
Jesus was begotten by the Holy Ghost and born 
of a prepared fine young Jewish Virgin, thus 
giving him a perfect human body. (Heb. 10: 
5. ) "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, 
he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest 
not, but a body hast thou prepared me." There 
is absolutely no proof of the claim by modern- 
ists that the father of Jesus was a man, for if 
his father had been a man there could have 
been no foundation for the claim of sinless- 
ness, as all men born in the natural way are 
born in sin. 


A heart to heart message to my brethren, 
the Methodist preachers: one of the most im- 
portant bodies of men on earth is that of the 
Methodist preachers; as go the Methodist 
preachers, so will go a large section of the 
world. Therefore, the importance of their go- 
ing in the right way. 

Methodism has from the beginning been the 
most powerful movement for salvation of men 
in existence; therefore, the importance of keep- 
ing the church at her best, and not making 
changes that impair her usefulness; to depart 
from her doctrinal standards is to impair her 
power and usefulness. It is in the power of her 
preachers to preserve or to destroy faith in her 
doctrines and therefore her usefulness, and no 
preacher can and will preach her doctrines who 
does not believe them. 

I am instituting a little clinic on Methodist 
preachers: Brother preacher, take your dis- 
cipline and read carefully the first ten of the 
articles of religion and see how many of these 
modernists believe, and note the ones they do 
not believe. I think you will see if you know 
the teaching of modernism that not one of them 
will escape their criticism. These ten, cover 
the fundamental teachings of the church; there 
are fifteen more but most of them are on non- 
essentials; these articles are on fundamental 
Bible truth, that is truth that is essential to the 
salvation of men. Now, can these men who 
reject or ignore these doctrines preach a gospel 
that will save lost men? I do not think so, 
they are not Methodist and have no gospel 
message. Is it safe for the Church and those 
who should be saved to trust these men with 
the important task? They cannot, and will not 
preach that gospel. 

To go a little further into it: are these men 
honest intellectually and morally, who stand 
at the conference door and say in most solemn 
vows that they believe these doctrines and 

promise to defend and preach them when they 
do not mean to do it, but on the contrary criti- 
cize or deny them? I think to ask the question 
is to answer it: It is very clear. ... A Missis- 
sippi modernist preacher wrote Bob Shuler, 
"You are not a Methodist, you are a funda- 
mentalist." Poor ignorant, educated^?) fellow; 
he thinks that to believe the fundamental 
teachings of the Methodist Church is not Meth- 
odism. Then what is Methodism? According to 
him it is to disbelieve all these sound, time- 
honored doctrines. But this poor boy is not so 
much to blame after all, it is what is being 
taught him, beginning with the Sunday School 
and on down, not up; through college and 
school of religion. 

From whence cometh all this stuff that they 
are teaching these boys in our Colleges, Uni- 
versities, and Schools of Religion? Let us look 
into that a little: I quote the following bit of 
information that I got from the religious press 
two or three years ago, from a group of Liber- 
als: Dr. Harold Paul Sloan, one of the great 
men of Methodism, got hold of the information 
and made the statement that, "Twenty-five 
years ago a group of men met in Boston and 
agreed together to work for the liberalization 
of Methodism, procedure to be along four 
lines: First, putting a chair of English Bible, 
taught by a man of rational sympathy, in the 
various colleges of the church. Second, liberal- 
izing the Book Concern. Third, liberalizing the 
Ritual. Fourth, liberalizing the Course of Study 
for our preachers." 

All these things they have done and are still 
doing. You see, they need only one man in a 
college to inject this poison into our young 
men. They do have the book concern, and all 
the presses of Methodism; they cannot change 
the Articles of Religion, and the General Rules, 
but they have done and are doing their worst 
to the Ritual of the Church, and they have 
changed the Courses of Study for our preach- 



ers. Sixty-one years ago when I joined confer- 
ence they had in the courses of study the books 
ot the founders of Methodism, great scholars 
they were: Wesley, Watson, Fletcher, Benson, 
Clark and others. Now, none of these are in 
the course of study, but books of modernists : 
Harry Emerson Fosdick, who is not a Method- 
ist but a confessed, boasting modernist, and 
other books of the same type. I understand 
none of the books of the Methodist fathers are 
i n T t e wfe ols of Reli gion. Jesus said (Luke 
11: 52;, Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have 
taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered 
not in yourselves, and them that were entering 
in ye hindered." 

I consider this a parallel case of modernists 
at present in their taking away the Doctrinal 
standards, and substituting the tenets of evo- 
lution. They stand in the same condemnation 
under the Savior's Woe. How can we expect 
these fine boys going out of Methodist homes 
to know or care for Methodism? They are 
simply ignorant of Methodist doctrines and 
polity and yet: they are required to take the 
solemn vows of belief in and loyalty to the 
Methodist doctrines and polity, when they do 
not know what they are doing. So, they think 
they are Methodists when they are not. "Poor 
boys, victims of that dishonest plot formed by 
a bunch of ecclesiastical crooks, twenty-seven 
years ago, still being carried out by their suc- 
cessors. If they were honest men, they would 
not have been preachers in the Methodist 
Church, for no honest man will go into the 
ministry of the Methodist Church taking these 
sacred vows when he does not mean a word 
of it; and stay in denying these Articles of 
Religion and other doctrines that he does not 
believe. Why did they not do as other groups 
who have organized churches to suit their 

n ?H°r n i 9 5 they wanted the great institutions 
ot Methodism and laid this dishonest plot to 
get in possession of them, and they have sue- 

ceeded in getting them, and now are impudent 
and insolent in their treatment of the real 
Methodists, the fundamentalists who have made 
Methodism and still stand for her. 

The first act of thievery they performed was 
to steal Vanderbilt University. When they be- 
gan teaching what they called the higher criti- 
cism in Vanderbilt, some of our Bishops, Hoss, 
Morrison, Kilgo and others went after them 
with their gloves off, till they saw that they 
must do something, quit teaching it or steal the 
University; so they chose the latter, and pro- 
ceeded to select new trustees, hunting the 
country over till they found enough to make 
a majority of modernists, then voted to take 
over the University; and the church had to 
move out and build, so we built two: one at 
Dallas, Texas, and one at Atlanta, Georgia. 
That is how we lost Vanderbilt University; just 
a bunch of thieves in the name of religious 

I am eighty-six years old, have been a 
preacher in the Methodist Church for about 
sixty-four years, and I know about these things; 
I have been watching Modernism from its be- 
ginning in our country, and I am obliged to 
look on it as a dishonest movement, as well as 
a movement without God; but against him. 
They have taken charge of all the institutions 
of the church with their vast property holdings 
amassed by old-time honest, many of them 
shouting, Methodists; and are using them to 
deceive and lead away the children and grand- 
children of these old-time Methodists. 

I am citing a case that shows what modern- 
ism really is: "I consider it The Voice of Mod- 
ernism." A prominent fundamental minister 
interviewed a leading modernist Methodist 
minister in Washington city. I quote verbatim 
the modernist's reply, "In our denomination 
what you call 'The Faith of Our Fathers' is 
approaching total extinction. Of course, a few 
of the older ministers still cling to the Bible, 



but among the young men, the real leaders of 
our denomination today, I do not know a single 
one who believes in miracles, in answer to 
prayer, in what you call the new birth, in the 
return of Christ, or any of the things you call 

When questioned he boasted that he knew 
of no fundamentalists, in leading positions in 
his denomination; when the inquirer said, 
"Surely you have old fashioned Methodists 
who believe in the old faith?" he smiled and 
replied, "Certainly, but the average Methodist 
is loyal to his denomination; he will follow us 
wherever we lead him; church loyalty insures 
the success of the Liberal Movement." A lot of 
Methodists are silly enough to follow them. 
You see, he glories in the fact that modernists 
have demoted, or put out altogether all funda- 
mentalists from places of leadership; that shows 
the spirit and purpose of Modernism. 

Some may ask, "What is Modernism?" I 
answer, This is it: The best picture I can get 
of Modernism is that of a bunch of pirates, 
who steal a ship from its owners; and convert 
it into a fighting ship of their own, make port- 
holes, mount their guns and begin fighting the 
owners of the ship; that is exactly what Mod- 
ernism has done to the Methodist Church. 

Let me ask this boasting modernist a few 
questions, "How did you get into the Method- 
ist ministry? Did you stand at the door of the 
conference and tell the Bishop, and the confer- 
ence that you have studied the doctrines of the 
Methodist Church, and that you believed 
them, and promised to preach them and main- 
tain them? Did you mean it, or were you just 
lying in order to get in? Did you say you be- 
lieved the Holy Scriptures, and promised to 
preach them? Were you honest then, are you 
honest now? Then what has happened? You 
are the reverse of what you were then; you 
must be a modern Mr. Hyde, and Dr. Jekyll, 
and who can believe you?" 



Then 1 am interested to know if these mod- 
ernists worship Jesus They praise Jesus to the 
skies as a man, but deny his virgin birth, and 
deity. Dr Daniel L. Marsh in Adult Student for 
January, has an article on Jesus the man but 
not one word to indicate that he was anything 
but a man; he speaks of the graciousness of 
Jesus, always so considerate, kind, and gentle 
1 suppose he had not read the twenty-third 
chapter of Matthew, where Jesus called the 
Scribes and Pharisees, "hypocrites" at least 
seven times; fools, and blind guides, "Ye ser- 
pents, ye generations of vipers, and whited 
sepulchers, full of dead men's bones." 

Yes, Jesus was a man kind where kindness 
was due; and severe where severity was due- 
and the hypocritical church people got the 

Modernists reveal great ignorance of divine 
things, and a gross inconsistency in worshiping 
Jesus, when they deny his virgin birth and 
deity. It He is a mere man: he is not to be 
worshiped. We have no record of a good man 
who received worship as God, no person or 
being is to be worshiped but God. Jesus re- 
ceived worship as God even hearing and 
answering prayer, and forgiving sins; there- 
tore. He is God But modernists do not believe 
He is God, and yet worship him; how incon- 

Now friend, don't deny that you worship 
Jesus: the rituals, the prayers, and hymns of 
the church are built on the worship of Jesus 
cnnst as God. I know the predicament you 
are m, it it was I in such a predicament I'd 
get out; that is why you fellows are sweating 
at the nose, and trying to change everything 
I cannot sympathize with you; you should not 
put yourself in such a position. 

Friend: Why are you in the Methodist min- 
istry, anyway? You knew her doctrines and 
polity or should have known them before you 
entered that ministry; there was no compul- 


sion: So you should conform yourself and your 
teaching to them, or get out. 

See your predicament: You do not believe 
in the first or second Articles of Religion in 
the Discipline, the Holy Trinity, and deity of 
Jesus, and yet you confess faith in both every 
time you baptize a candidate, bury the dead, 
marry a couple, sing the doxology, or pro- 
nounce the benediction. 

Do you want to be honest, sincere, and con- 
sistent? How can you in a Christian Church? 
A Mormon Elder, or a Russellite, can be just 
as consistent in the Methodist Church as you 

Let us consider the beliefs or rather the un- 
beliefs of this Washington modernist Methodist 
preacher, for he is a key man in this discussion 
as he furnishes us important material. He is 
boastful, and proud of the accomplishments 
of modernism: He says that, what we call the 
"Faith of our Fathers, is approaching total 
extinction." Are we willing for this old precious 
faith to be put away, and become extinct? 
Then he says, "Among the younger men, the 
real leaders of our denomination today; I do 
not know a single one of whom believes in 
miracles, in answer to prayer, in what you call 
the new birth in the return of Christ, or any 
of the things you call fundamental." 

We will take it that he is telling the truth 
on his crowd, and that they, the leaders of the 
church, are endeavoring to destroy the Faith 
of our Fathers, that is the substance of his 
statement, and while the other leaders are too 
wise or too cowardly to state their position: 
that he states it for all of them. "I believe he 
has spilt the beans for them" and has told more 
than they wanted him to tell. There is no 
doubt that they all believe as he does, but 
pretend to be different because, they know 
they do not have the laymen with them; and 
they fear an uprising of the laymen, and that 


is just what is happening now. Many laymen 
have already been aroused and are making 
themselves felt. Recently laymen from sixteen 
states met and organized, naming their organi- 
zation the "Circuit Riders" whose purpose is 
to meet and oppose all this false teaching. 

This man says they do not believe in miracles; 
of course they do not; nor any other funda- 
mental teaching of the Bible; they do not be- 
lieve in answer to prayer, then why do they 
say prayers? They do not pray of course; so it 
is a hypocritical way of saying prayers, as the 
Pharisees of old. Prayer with the expectancy of 
answer is fundamental in all religions, even the 
heathen have that. Is the Christian religion that 
devoid of reality? 

I have two reasons for believing God 
answers prayer: First, the word says so! 
( Jeremiah 33 : 3 ) , "Call to me, and I will 
answer thee." (Isa. 50: 15), "Call upon me in 
the day of trouble, and I will answer thee." 
(Matt. 7: 7), "Ask and it shall be given you." 
Second, reason, is the experience, "He answers 
my prayers and I know; and rejoice in it." 

Why do modernist preachers go through 
with the performance of conducting services 
in our churches when they do not believe that 
God is present revealing himself and answering 
prayers? Is that no solemn mockery? Is it only 
the gymnastics that brings benefit to them? 

A hypocritical performance never benefits 
anyone. What about family prayers, and private 
prayers, do these men pray at all? We know 
they say prayers. The rituals have them, and 
they say them. Will devout, sensible Method- 
ist^ follow a group like that? 

"'They do not believe in what you call the 
new birth." Of course not; they believe all men 
are already children of God, and do not need 
to be born again, thus accusing Jesus of lying. 
They do not believe in the blood atonement, 
then why do they administer the Lord's Supper 
or partake of it? They do not believe in the 


return of Jesus; of course not — he is just a man, 
and to reutrn would prove Him divine. 

The truth is they do not believe the Bible 
at all; the only thing they really believe is 
evolution, all these other things regarding the 
Bible, and the church are their unbeliefs, for 
they cannot believe in the Bible and evolution 
at the same time. They cannot believe in the 
God of the Bible nor in a virgin-born redeem- 
ing Saviour. 

A sad fact is that many grey-headed Method, 
ist preachers that are not modernists are fol- 
lowing the modernist leaders as ignorant of it 
all; sycophants, or cowards, and are helping 
to wreck the church. They are like trash in 
every wind. 

I am sure that the modernists will call me 
cruel, and unkind for applying these epithets 
to them, lying thieves, dishonest, and the rest; 
but it is candor and courage that is in keeping 
with prophets, Jesus and the apostles that I use 
the terms that belong to them. 

If any can prove that I am mistaken about 
it, "I'll confess and beg pardon." I quote a 
few passages from John the beloved disciple 
who himself was a great lover; but honesty 
and candor compelled him to call things by 
their right names. In John 4: 20, "If a man 
say I love God and hateth his neighbor he is 
a liar." 2 John 7th vs., John calls those who 
deny the deity of Jesus "deceivers, and anti- 
christs." I John 2: 4, "A liar and the truth is 
not in him." 2 Tim. 13: 13, Paul says, "But evil 
men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, 
deceiving and being deceived." We cannot de- 
ceive without being deceived; and modernists 
are certainly in the deceiving business. 

If I be accused of intolerance I plead guilty: 
that is the only attitude a Christian can afford 
to have toward evil. 

"Ye that love the Lord hate evil." (Psa. 97: 
10). And if we hate evil we will do something 
about it. What is meant by evil? Sin and false 


doctrines. I consider modernism one of the 
worse of false doctrines I know of; and I hate 
it enough to do something about it. (Jude 3), 
"Contend earnestly for the faith, which was 
once delivered to the saints," and to do as I 
promised in my ordination vows; to do all in 
my power to drive away all erroneous and 
strange doctrines. 

We note that the text teaches that the grand 
purpose of God in reconciling the word to 
himself is: To present you holy, unblameable, 
and unreprovable, in his sight. This means that 
man is not only redeemed from sin, but puri- 
fied in heart and life, till he not only keeps 
the commandments and walks according to 
them; but he loves them, and they are "Sweeter 
than honey and the honey comb," as David 

So holiness, and blamelessness is God's pur- 
pose in redeeming man to himself, to fit him 
into a holy life here, and into a holy heaven 

"Arise, my soul, arise; 
Shake off thy guilty fears: 
The bleeding sacrifice 
In my behalf appears: 
Before the throne my surety stands, 
My name is written on His hands. 

"He ever lives above 
For me to intercede; 
His all redeeming love, 
His precious blood, to plead; 
His blood atoned for all our race, 
And sprinkles now the throne of grace. 

"Five bleeding wounds He bears, 
Received on Calvary; 
They pour effectual prayers, 
They strongly plead for me; 
'Forgive him, O forgive/ they cry, 
'Nor let that ransomed sinner die!' 


The Father hears Him pray, 
His dear anointed One; 
He cannot turn away 
The presence of his Son; 
His Spirit answers to the blood, 
And tells me I am born of God. 

"My God is reconciled; 
His pardoning voice I hear; 
He owns me for His child, 
I can no longer fear: 
With confidence I now draw nigh 
And, 'Father, Abba, Father/ cry." 

—Charles Wesley.